Multiple Mass. superdelegates plan to vote for Clinton in Denver

From the PolitickerMA.com

By Jeremy P. Jacobs
U.S. Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.): Getty Image

UPDATED: A recent survey of Massachusetts superdelegates that endorsed U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary found that several plan to vote for Clinton on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention next week.

Following news that Clinton's name will be placed in nomination at the convention next week in Devner, PolitickerMA.com contacted every Massachusetts superdelegate that endorsed Clinton in the primary this week and asked if he or she planned to vote for the New York senator on the first ballot for nomination next week. More...

According to Politico's tally of superdelegates, 11 in Massachusetts delegation endorsed Clinton in the primary.

Send tips to jeremy.jacobs@politickerma.com

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Worcester) told PolitickerMA.com that he plans to cast his vote for Clinton if her name is on the ballot.

"Yes, I would," McGovern said. "If her name is placed in nomination I'll probably cast my vote for her."

McGovern said he understands that more superdelgates will vote for presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama (Ill.) but that won't stop him from fulfilling his endorsement.

"It's not that I don't expect Barack Obama to be the nominee, I do," he said. "But as a show of respect, gratitude and appreciation, I think many of us would like the opportunity to vote for her on the first ballot."

Gus Bickford, Massachusetts superdelegate that endorsed Clinton, said he could change his mind but that right now, "I am a person of my word and I made a commitment."
"If the vote were held today," he said, "I would vote for her on the first ballot."
Bickford insisted that he "strongly supports Obama" and said that the situation could change by the time the balloting occurs. In particular, he said, "if she were named as his vice presidential candidate, then she wouldn't be on the ballot." Bickford said he would like Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate.

Diane Saxe, another Bay State superdelegate that endrosed Clinton, also said she will vote for Clinton on the first ballot. "I would like the opportunity to vote for Sen. Clinton," she said in an email.
Saxe also noted that after the first ballot, she'll swing her support to Obama. "But I also recognize that it has gone too far and after the first ballot we need to endorse Sen. Obama. That is what Sen. Clinton wants us to do."

(UPDATE 11:42 A.M.:) Attorney General Martha Coakley's (D-Medford) office has told PolitickerMA.com that she also plans to vote for Clinton on the first ballot. Coakley is another Massachusetts superdelegate that endorsed Clinton in the primary.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton) was originally a strong Clinton supporter but then switched his support to Obama after he secured the nomination. He told PolitickerMA.com that the drama surrounding Clinton's name being placed in nomination is unnecessary and unfounded. A vote on with her name on the first ballot will have little, if any impact, he said.

"It's a big deal over nothing," he said. "Nothing will be affected one way or another...I don't think it will make one difference."

"An hour after it's happened it will make zero difference to anyone with a brain."
Other Massachusetts superdelegates Debre DeLee, Steven Grossman, Elaine Kamarck and Arthur Powell, U.S. Reps. Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston) and Richard Neal (D-Springfield) did not return phone calls and emails at the time of publication.

PolitickerMA.com will report who these superdelegates plan to vote for on the first ballot as that information becomes available.

Example Letter To Super Delegates

 Here's a Wonderful example of a letter to send to your Super Delegates:

To every Super Delegate on this list:
 
We know exactly how much money you received from The Hope Fund and Pac to the Future, as well as by what margin your constituents supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton over Barack Obama.  The people who elected you are also aware that they live in a state or district which Hillary Clinton won by big margins; they expect their voices and votes to be counted properly by you, their elected representatives.  Against the will of these people who elected you, you endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.   More...
 
Your constituents, and the American public, will hold you accountable for the choice you make in Denver .  You have a duty and a responsibility to represent your constituents and select the electable Democrat.  She is HRC.  Please have the courage and do what is right at the Convention in Denver by voting for Senator Hillary Clinton.  The people of your district and state are depending on you, as is the rest of the country. 
 
Your benefactor, Nancy Pelosi tells people in Congress to vote based on three C's: Constituents, Constitution, and Conscience.   When you cast your vote as a Super Delegate, remember these three C's, and especially your constituents, without whom you would not hold the awesome position you do today.  We have confidence that here, in the United States of America, elected officials still have a conscience, and that you will do the right thing in Denver. 
 
Thank you!
 
Barack Obama spent $710,900 in PAC money.

Obama Paid

$10,000 Robert Byrd of W. Virginia (HRC won by 41%)
$10,000 Rep. Brad Ellsworth of (HRC won by 2%) IN
$7,500 Donnelly (HRC won by 2%) IN
$12,500 Baron Hill (HRC won by 2%) IN
$11,500 Carol Shea Porter NH (HRC won by 3%) NH
$12,500 Rep Baron Hill (HRC won by 2%) IN
$4,200 Sen Jeff Bingaman  (HRC won by 1%) NM
$11,000 Ron Klein  (HRC won by 17%) FL
$9,000 Sen Frank Lautenberg (HRC won by 10%) NJ
$7,500 Rep Joe Donnelly (HRC won by 2%) IN
$5,000 Re. Gerald McNerney (HRC won by 9%) CA
$10,000 Rep.Jason Altmire (HRC won by 10%) PA
$5,000 Niki Tsongas (HRC won by 14%) MA
$4,000 Rep. Dennis Cardoza (HRC won by 9%) CA
$9,000 Rep Gabrielle Giffords (HRC won by 8%) AZ
$4,000 Rep. Jim Costa (HRC won by 9%) CA
$7,500 Rep. Zack Space (HRC won by 10%) OH
$7,000 Rep. Charles Wilson (HRC won by 10%) OH
$5,000 Sen Jay Rockefeller (HRC won by 41%) WV
$14,000 Rep Paul Hodes  (HRC won by 3%) NH
$7,500 Rep Chet Edwards (HRC won by 4%) TX
$5,000 Gov Bill Richardson (HRC won by 1%) NM
$4,000 Rep Al Green (HRC won by 4%) TX
$4,000 Rep Barbara Lee (HRC won by 9%) CA
$4,000 Rep Chaka Fattah (HRC won by 10%) PA
$1,000 State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark (HRC won by 3%) NH
 
 
Pelosi Paid

$2,500 John Adler (HRC won by 10%) NJ
$10,000 Jason Altmire (HRC won by 10%)PA
$10,000 Andre Carson (HRC won by 2%) IN
$10,000 Joe Donnelly (HRC won by 2%) IN
$10,000 Gabrielle Giffords  (HRC won by 8%) AZ
$10,000 Baron Hill (HRC won by 2%) IN
$10,000 Ron Klein ( HRC won by 17%) FL
$10,000 Tim Mahoney  (HRC won by 17%) FL
$10,000 Harry Mitchell (HRC won by 8%) AZ
$10,000 Patrick Murphy (HRC won by 10%) PA
$10,000 Carol Shea Porter (HRC won by 3%) NH
$10,000 Zach Space (HRC won by 10%) OH
$10,000 Niki Tsongas  (HRC won by 15%)MA
$7,500 Nick Lampson (HRC won by 4%) TX
 
Recomandation against:

Gov. Chet Culver (IA)
Norma Chavez (HRC won by 4%) TX

What Washington's Primary Results Mean

Both sides were spinning fast in the hours after Tuesday evening’s primary in the hotly contended race for the 8th Congressional District seat.

“This is a significant defeat for Burner who made it clear that she needed to outpoll Reichert in the primary to keep her national fundraising base engaged and spent over half a million dollars in the loss,” the National Republican Congressional Committee wrote in a post-primary memo, referring to U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert’s 48 percent to 44 percent outpacing of businesswoman Darcy Burner. More...

“In fact, despite his turnout advantages, the incumbent has been held under 50 percent of the primary vote, and the combined Democratic vote is greater than the Republican vote,” Burner pollster Celinda Lake wrote in a memo of her own today. “This is sobering news for Reichert.”

Who’s right?

PolitickerWA.com asked some of Washington, DC’s top political odds makers if Reichert’s narrow primary edge mean that he has a leg up heading into the fall, or does the two-term incumbent’s failure to reach 50 percent mean that he is vulnerable.

Most said that the results showed that Burner and Reichert, who were separated by just 7,000 votes in their 2006 race, were headed for a tough rematch.

Politicker.com’s Pindell Report ranks the Burner-Reichert race as the most competitive U.S. House race in the country.

“Overall, the results basically tell us what we already knew – that this race is going to be extremely close on Election Day,” said Tim Sahd, editor of House Race Hotline.

Nathan Gonzales, an analyst for the Rothenberg Political Report, said the race was in the tossup to slightly lean Republican category and that the results would do little to change the grading of the contest. While Reichert could have certainly fared worse in the primary, Gonzalez said, he was in for a dogfight.

But Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia and the author of the Crystal Ball, said the results showed that Reichert maintained a small lead in the race.

“The four percent primary margin for Reichert is a decent argument that he is holding his own and maintaining his usual narrow lead as the incumbent in a tough district,” explained Sabato.

What most of the analysts agreed on was that one should be careful in reading too far into the primary. Without a presidential race at the top of the ticket, it was hard to get a full picture of how November’s general election might play out.

“As long as the results are close, I don’t think it says a lot. While it is true that Burner finished ahead in the 2006 primary, the presence of the presidential race atop the ballot here should help her considerably this year,” said David Wasserman, an analyst for the Cook Political Report.

And then there’s the general unpredictability of a mid-August primary.

“I also recognize that the primary results are squirrelly. One shouldn’t read too much into them,” said Sabato.

Justine Lam
Online Marketing Director
Politicker.com
marketing@politicker.com

MSNBC's general manager and longtime host Dan Abrams is being replaced by Rachel Maddow

By BILL CARTER

Published: August 19, 2008 

Just in time for the closing rush of the presidential election, MSNBC is shaking up its prime-time programming lineup, removing the longtime host Dan Abrams — its onetime general manager — from his 9 p.m. program and replacing him with Rachel Maddow, who has emerged as a favored political commentator for the all-news cable network.

The moves, which were confirmed by MSNBC executives on Tuesday, are expected to be finalized by Wednesday, with Mr. Abrams’s last program on Thursday. After MSNBC’s extensive coverage of the two political conventions during the next two weeks, Ms. Maddow will begin her program on Sept. 8.More...

Peter Kramer/Getty Images
Dan Abrams "

MSNBC is highlighting the date, 9/8/08, connecting it to the start of the Olympics on 8/8/08, as a way to signal what the network’s president, Phil Griffin, said “will be the final leg of the political race this year.” He added, “We’re making that Rachel’s debut.”

Mr. Abrams, who is well liked at MSNBC, is expected to remain both there and at NBC News, where he is the chief legal correspondent. He will also serve as an anchor during some of MSNBC’s daytime coverage, as well as a substitute host on NBC’s “Weekend Today” show.

The addition of Ms. Maddow as a prime-time host had been expected for some time. Only a month ago Mr. Griffin said she was at the top of the list to get a program at the network and was likely to secure one soon.

MSNBC has put heavy emphasis this year on presidential election coverage (it has given itself the tag line “The Place for Politics”), and it has turned to Ms. Maddow frequently both as a guest and as a substitute for its most popular host, Keith Olbermann. Mr. Olbermann’s emergence as the signature personality on MSNBC has led to its unofficial rebranding as the liberal alternative to Fox News, which is dominated by conservative hosts like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.

MSNBC has been known to be seeking a way to capitalize to a greater degree on Mr. Olbermann’s popularity. A program with Ms. Maddow as host will almost certainly be a closer ideological fit with Mr. Olbermann’s.

Mr. Abrams was not as overt a partisan. His program, “Verdict,” was based more on legal than political issues. He enjoyed some success, especially lately. With help from NBC’s Olympics coverage, he beat Larry King’s show on CNN twice last week among the viewers preferred by news advertisers, those between the ages of 25 and 54.

Contacted by phone Tuesday, Mr. Abrams said, “Considering where the network is right now, it is actually the right call.”

Mr. Griffin said of the selection of Ms. Maddow: “This just completes our prime-time lineup. Our lineup makes sense now.”

Ms. Maddow’s appointment is likely to cement MSNBC’s status as a network seeking an audience of Democratic and liberal viewers, many of whom have embraced Mr. Olbermann’s outspoken criticism of both the Bush administration and Fox News.

She has burnished her credentials as a commentator from the left through her talk show on the left-leaning Air America radio network. Ms. Maddow, 35, began at Air America when it went on the air in 2004. She was used as a commentator on both CNN and MSNBC before she signed an exclusive deal with MSNBC this year.

Mr. O’Reilly, who has been the chief bête noire for Mr. Olbermann, has increasingly attacked NBC News for catering to the political left. In the past year Republican officials, including some in Senator John McCain’s campaign, have formally protested aspects of MSNBC’s coverage as biased, charges NBC News executives have denied. The addition of Ms. Maddow is likely to those attacks, as well as the growing enmity between MSNBC and Fox News in general.

Mr. Griffin said: “Those people should just watch the show. We’re hiring Rachel because she’s a smart person. Rachel goes far beyond politics. She’s an expert on military affairs. She was a Rhodes scholar.”

Ms. Maddow said in a telephone interview, “This is great; getting a regular cable show is something I’ve wanted.” She said the intensity of the presidential race meant that topic will remain her focus through the election, and probably for the first 100 days of a new administration.

All kinds of Negative stories on Obama- Here's a few more:

Media Imbalance Helps McCain? - by Steve Kornacki of The New York Observer
Obama in Need of a Game-Changer -  CNN AC 360
Inflated Expectations Hurting Obama - Michael Goodwin, NY Daily News
Does Obama Need Hillary Clinton? - John Nichols, The Nation
Words That Joe Biden Would Like to Forget - Jim Geraghty, NRO
Obama's Female Voter 'Problem' - Ruth Marcus, Washington Post

McCain's numbers go up, Obama's go down, and both deserve it.

Barack Obama’s trip overseas last month was designed to bolster his commander-in-chief bona fides and show American voters how well regarded he was by our international allies. But the truth is that the trip was a mistake, and it in fact marked a turning point in the campaign at which John McCain began to gain momentum for the first time. More...

Obamamania reached a peak in July as Obama traveled overseas, first to Afghanistan and Iraq, then to Israel and Jordan, and finally to Berlin, Paris and London. The Illinois Senator was on a roll as he prepared to return, maintaining leads in the polls of anywhere from six to 10 points. As a Republican, I was nervous about the photo-ops that might result from the trip: Obama with smiling troops; Obama charming the leaders of Israel and Jordan; Obama received with open arms by European allies; Obama cheered by tens of thousands of Berliners gathered to hear him speak. The whole trip had a purposefully presidential appearance, but it now appears the campaign may have overplayed its hand. There were meetings with foreign heads of state, one-on-one sit-downs with all three of the major network news anchors, and there were even two separate occasions where the media caught Obama campaign staffers in verbal slips and had to remind them that their boss was not yet, in fact, the president. I believe many Americans were put off by the presumptuousness of a candidate taking what the McCain campaign smartly called “a premature victory lap.” Obama’s strategists must have recognized this too, since I have yet to see a single Obama ad featuring photos or videos from his travels.

Upon his return to the States, the poll numbers soon reflected Obama’s miscalculation. Initially expecting to receive a bump in the polls from the foreign tour, the campaign was surely disappointed to instead see the gap between Obama and McCain narrow. Here, too, began some real signs of life from McCain. While many in the media echoed the Obama campaign’s response that the “Celebrity” ad was silly or juvenile, McCain’s surrogate, Sen. Lindsey Graham pinpointed the ad’s purpose. Graham said the primary theme was to highlight the “hysteria around a personality that's attractive, but when you look under the hood there's not a whole lot there.” The ad was effective, and was followed up by another tongue-in-cheek McCain ad entitled “The One,” poking fun at the hero worship of Obama in some quarters that sometimes seems to border on religious fervor.

Not long after that, Obama was speaking to supporters in Missouri and speculated about the strategy he felt McCain and the GOP would use against him. “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” he said. “You know: ‘He’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’” McCain’s team reacted immediately, and with intensity, accusing Obama of “play[ing] the race card,” which seemed obvious.

Obama curious decided last week not only to give both Hillary and Bill Clinton separate primetime speaking slots at next week’s Democratic Convention, but also to allow Hillary’s name to be officially placed in nomination. While the joint statement released by Obama and Clinton touted this as a way to help unify the Democratic Party, it will actually do just the opposite by only perpetuating the divisions in the party, and perhaps more damaging, sustaining the discontent of the hardcore Hillary supporters who still seem reluctant to embrace Obama. This should be his convention and his alone, but instead he’ll now be largely sharing it with not only the woman he defeated in the primaries, but also her vitriolic and increasingly unpredictable husband.

Obama’s bumpy ride culminated this past weekend during a joint appearance with McCain at the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life. The candidates sat down with “Pastor Rick” one-on-one, for an hour each. Obama went first, and the consensus from both left and right was that he did not fare well. He equivocated, he evaded, and he arguably gave poor and alarmingly shallow answers to some important and significant questions, such as the one he offered on the issue of abortion. He was asked by Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama responded, “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering this question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” Regardless of one’s views on abortion, the issue is one on which a presidential candidate is expected to have a definitive opinion, and in the federal government, there is no “pay grade” above the president’s.

McCain, by contrast, had his best performance of the campaign thus far. He was energetic and forceful, warm and resolute in his answers as Obama was weak, aloof and wavering. As a Republican heretofore more opposed to Obama than for McCain, this was the first time I felt actively enthusiastic about the Republican nominee. I believe this was a crucial moment in this campaign because Obama’s dearth of experience—both political experience and life experience—was impossible to miss. The Obama campaign’s subsequent unsubstantiated (and since proven invalid) claims that McCain effectively cheated by possibly knowing the questions beforehand clearly show their recognition of the fact that their man was damaged by the drubbing he took at Saddleback. Of the many issues Obama has reversed himself on in the last several months—none of which the media have held him accountable for, incidentally—perhaps there is at least one flip-flop for which Democrats should breathe a sigh of relief. In May, Obama somewhat cockily expressed his willingness to debate McCain “anywhere, anytime.” The teleprompter more and more appears to be Obama’s oratorical pacifier, and had he kept his pledge and agreed to McCain’s June offer of 10 one-on-one town hall meetings, I suspect McCain might even be leading in the polls by now.

As of today, the race is very close—probably tied or with Obama leading slightly. As much as Obama has only himself to blame for a tumultuous few weeks and a statistically insignificant lead, McCain and his campaign deserve some credit, too. McCain seems to have awakened and has shown flashes of competent campaigning. Likewise, his campaign appears to have finally found a rudder, and to have developed a better understanding of how to best utilize the skills he does have, while avoiding situations not conducive to his strengths. Unquestionably, McCain has managed to gain control of the national “conversation” over the last few weeks, and he and his campaign have taken full advantage of the increased attention. Obama’s advantages remain numerous and daunting, and despite the last few weeks, the election is still his to lose. With that said, the stakes are about to reach the highest level yet, and the spotlight will never be brighter. Can Obama close the deal? A month ago I’d have said yes; now I’m not so sure.

Battleground Poll: McCain +1

 Posted by TOM BEVAN from Real Clear Politics


A new Battleground Poll from the Tarrance Group (R) and Lake Research Partners (D) shows John McCain with a 1-point lead over Barack Obama among likely voters with leaners. The poll was conducted August 10-14 with a sample of 1,000 LVs and margin of error of +/- 3.1%:

McCain 47 (nc vs last poll in May)
Obama 46 (-3)
Undecided 7 (+2)

Obama's lead in the RCP National Avg continues to slide, down to just 1.2%.

Reuters/Zogby: McCain +5

Posted by TOM BEVAN  Author


On the heels of the LAT/Bloomberg survey showing Obama dropping 10 points since June comes another piece of bad news from Reuters/Zogby. Their new poll, conducted Thursday through Saturday (August 14-17), shows McCain taking the lead away from Obama - a 12-point turnaround from last month when Obama led by 7:
McCain 46 (+6 vs. last poll July 9-13)            Obama 41 (-6)

Overall, Obama's lead in the RCP National Average is down to 1.9 points.

Obama Played by Chicago Rules

Barack Obama talks with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, June 6."

By DAVID FREDDOSO
August 20, 2008; Page A19

Democrats don't like it when you say that Barack Obama won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities.

By clearing out the incumbent and the others in his first Democratic primary for state Senate, Mr. Obama did something that was neither illegal nor even uncommon. But Mr. Obama claims to represent something different from old-style politics -- especially old-style Chicago politics. And the senator is embarrassed enough by what he did that he misrepresents it in the prologue of his political memoir, "The Audacity of Hope." More...

In that book, Mr. Obama paints a portrait of himself as a genuine reformer and change agent, just as he has in this presidential campaign. He attributes his 1996 victory to his message of hope, and his exhortations that Chicagoans drop their justifiable cynicism about politics.

When voters complained of all the broken promises politicians had made in the past, Mr. Obama writes that he "would usually smile and nod, and say that I understood the skepticism, but that there was -- and always had been -- another tradition to politics, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done."

Mr. Obama writes that even if the voters were not impressed by this speech, "enough of them appreciated my earnestness and youthful swagger that I made it to the Illinois legislature."

In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama's petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents' signatures on various technical grounds -- all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that "[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don't live in the 13th district."

One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.

In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents -- including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.

The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

But Mr. Obama's offenses against the idea of a "new politics" are many, and go well beyond hardball election tactics. It is telling that, when asked at the Saddleback Forum last weekend to name an instance in which he had worked against his own party or his own political interests, he didn't have a good answer. He claimed to have worked with his current opponent, John McCain, on ethics reform. In fact, no such thing happened. The two men had agreed to work together, for all of one day, in February 2006, and then promptly had a well-documented falling-out. They even exchanged angry letters over this incident.

The most dramatic examples of Mr. Obama's commitment to old-style politics are his repeated endorsements of Chicago's machine politicians, which came in opposition to what people of all ideological stripes viewed as the common good.

In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago's Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.

The since-deceased Stroger's self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.

When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County's government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.

After the primary, when Stroger's son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him -- to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals -- a "good, progressive Democrat."

Mayor Richard M. Daley -- who would receive Mr. Obama's endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago's city government -- was invested in the Stroger machine's survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama's friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger's finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko's wife on the county payroll).

Mr. Obama has never stood up against Chicago's corruption problem because his donors and allies are Chicago's corruption problem.

Mr. Obama is not the reformer he now claims to be. The real man is the one they know in Chicago -- the one who won his first election by depriving voters of a choice.

Mr. Freddoso is the author of the just-published "The Case Against Barack Obama" (Regnery).

Just a tiny bit of the Texas Caucus fraud....

Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Just 1/2 of the reports of Texas Caucus fraud in ONE CITY!

Well, well, well, look what has surfaced. wow. And this is how Obama won thirteen out of 14 caucuses (and only 18 out of 39 primaries).

The following link has 1/2 of the indecent reports from El Paso Texas caucuses in the 2008 primary Hillary vs. Barack Obama. There are literally 100's more than this throughout the state, and tons more in other states as well. The Texas caucus results should have been thrown the heck out. But of course, that would hurt Obama, so they were ignored by the DNC and by the media.  CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE..

McCain leads Electoral College when there are no "Toss Up's"!

I believe this is a first.... CLICK HERE to view.

Joint Ticket Makes Little Branding Sense

Posted by The Marketing Doctor at 5/14/2008 7:33 AM and is filed under Branding

This is an old story, but it is interesting to read in light of recent speculation that Obama should choose Hillary as VP.

Once again the Marketing Doctor decides to venture into tricky territory for the sake of branding!

I can’t help it!  When you see the world through the lens of branding some things make instant sense – or not!!!  Brand-thinking is a powerful tool because it gets the emotion out of the calculation!!!  And using the branding essentials as your starting point and guide can help you avoid a lot of dead ends and costly mistakes.

The idea of a joint Obama-Clinton ticket is a clear branding no no.  It would be one thing if the Obama and Hillary brands were in the early primary stages and voters had a vague sense of each brand and neither brand had tried to hard to differentiate itself from the other.  But this just isn’t the case!  Because of the length of this primary fight, brand identity and loyalty to brand have become central.  What this means is that a kind of brand mutual exclusivity has set in.  The Obama brand stands for something that the Hillary brand does not.  And vice versa! More...

But that doesn’t mean a joint ticket won’t happen anyway.  Think JFK and LBJ or Reagan and Bush!  Both were bitterly contested primaries that ended up with joint tickets that won in the end. 
Still my branding sense is that the Obama Clinton situation is different for many reasons including the fact that the Obama brand has harnessed the powerful concept of “change” and as the primary has grown more divisive this has made the Clinton brand more strongly aligned –fairly or unfairly— with the opposite of change.

In product land, Pepsi carved out a profitable brand by being the sweeter cola.  When Coke tried to get sweeter with New Coke there was a huge backlash against its brand.  Coke couldn’t be Pepsi.  Obviously, politics isn’t the same as product branding, but when you have two powerful and well-defined brands like Obama and Clinton similar branding rules apply!

Another soda example.  In the seventies, 7UP positioned their brand as the “uncola.”  Obama has done something similar with his brand.  He is the “unpolitician” (meaning doing politics in a new way).  How can this “unpolitician” brand work with the Hillary “pol par excellence” brand (which means doing politics as usual).  This is confusing to the electorate and since the top of the ticket is the brand that drives the combined brand you don’t want to make things confusing when they don’t have to be!  Such a combination would also undermine the credibility of the Obama’s brand “uncola” message –it would be like 7UP deciding to offer a cola when it had built its target market being anti-cola!

My branding advice would be to think twice before considering this a dream ticket!

And, remember, it’s always easier when you keep branding in mind!

Some more links on this story:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=499049

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/08/bill-clinton-a-clinton-obama-ticket-would-be-unstoppable/

http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/top_stories/41487/could_an_obamaclinton_ticket_win.html